Re: [xmca] Re: The social origins of pointing??

Rachel,
   
  Thanks for the answer to my question. I read through the article that mike sent and found it very heavily based on Searle and speech act theory but couldn't really identify where my concern was addressed. Your answer, however, seems to blur the distinction between Vygotsky and Tomasello somewhat.
   
  You wrote that If the adult only focused on the infant or did nothing, the infants reactions
were to repeat pointing or be less likely to point in future scenarios." Furthermore, attention to the object indicated by the pointing was not the object per se, rather, "joint attention", I think Tomasello uses the term "common ground", where the other (could be an adult but also an older child I imagine) can be identified as sharing that common ground with the infant.
   
  But I'd still like to know if the researchers paid attention to whether the adults reacted to any of the infant's gestures that resembled pointing and thus imparted the framework that allowed the infant to hone his or her gestures into "pointing". If that were the case, it would seem to be very close to Vygotsky's basic idea although the itransformation of grasping into pointing would be abandoned.
   
   
  Also, it seems that Tomasello presuppose the possibility of the infant's recognition of a common ground but isn't that exactly what needs to be explained?
   
  Paul
   
   
  For Paul's earlier question about infants realizing that pointing would
 
direct the attention of adults, Tomasello does use Liszkowski's (2004)
experiments regarding pointing and adult's reactions to demonstrate
 that
infants expect adults to react to pointing in a specific way. If the
adult only focused on the infant or did nothing, the infants reactions
were to repeat pointing or be less likely to point in future scenarios.

Rachel Cody <rcody@weber.ucsd.edu> wrote:
  
Pointing being foundational for language is too strong of a wording for
Tomasello's perspective in the article that we read. Although those were
actually my words (when summarizing the issue of pointing), Deb is quite
correct in pointing out that Tomasello related pointing to language in
regards to the underlying processes they both require: "joint attention,
reference via perspectives, reference to absent entities, cooperative
motives to help and to share, and other embodiments of shared
intentionality" (Tomasello, 719). He discusses pointing as "paving the
way" (718) for language emergence, allowing for joint attention on
objects to serve as a communication topic or focus. These topics have
the same communication purposes in pointing as they do in language.

So although Tomasello sees pointing as being a predecessor of language
and relying upon the same social-cognitive developments, he does not
argue that pointing is necessary for language to emerge.

For Paul's earlier question about infants realizing that pointing would
direct the attention of adults, Tomasello does use Liszkowski's (2004)
experiments regarding pointing and adult's reactions to demonstrate that
infants expect adults to react to pointing in a specific way. If the
adult only focused on the infant or did nothing, the infants reactions
were to repeat pointing or be less likely to point in future scenarios.
Additionally, if the infant pointed and the adult only looked at where
the infant pointed (which could be understood as pointing only
functioning to direct attention) the infants were not satisfied. It was
the joint attention to the infant /and /the object that satisfied the
infant. So this would indicate that infants knew pointing would direct
attention, but that by itself was not sufficient to satisfy the infant.

Rachel

deborah downing-wilson wrote:
> In seminar we discussed the extent to which Tomasello's paper was
> (in)compatible with the Vygotsky papers we read. We didn't pick up on all
> that Mike did. For example,
>
> "Tomasello also argues that human pointing forms the basic foundation for
> language. "
>
> I think we would have protested if we had understood this was what Tomasello
> meant.
>
> Many who don't point, the blind for example, develop language just fine. We
> understood that, like Vygotsky, Tomasello believes humans come equipped with
> a potential for intersubjectivity, which is the basic foundation for
> language. Pointing, we assumed, Tomasello sees as evidence of the
> development of this subjectivity. The only difference between he and
> Vygotsky being that in MTs model the baby could very well be mimicking
> observed behavior with the aid of an inner intersubjective bent (like
> verbalization - the baby 'knows' gesturing is potentially meaningful) where
> LV suggested pointing grew from purposeful reaching.
>
> If I'm misquoting the group, please jump in here.
>
> Deb
>
>
>
>
> On 11/4/07, Mike Cole wrote:
>
>
>> Dear XMCA-ites
>>
>> A few weeks ago in our seminar on mediational theories of mind, we
>> read recent work by Tomasello and colleagues on the ontogeny of pointing as
>> communicative gesture. Tomasello
>>
>> does not cite the work of Vygotsky on this topic because in his opinion,
>> Vygotsky's oft-cited views about the social origins of pointing have been
>> definitively proven erroneous.
>>
>> Given how often the example of the social origins of pointing are
>> repeated in chat-inspired writings, it seems worthwhile in light of current
>> research to question his views and to ask what difference it would make to
>> our ways of theorizing if we were to incorporate current work such
>>
>> as that of Tomasello and others.
>>
>> What follows is a brief descriptions of the issues. If people are
>> interested, we could go into this more deeply. If not, not.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. (From out Group's discussion). For Vygotsky, pointing as a
>> communication gesture arises out of a failed grasping motion. An adult,
>> seeing an infant unsuccessfully grasp for an object, interprets the grasping
>> as pointing at the object and treats it as a communicative act. The movement
>> "becomes a gesture for others" (56, Vygotsky /Mind in /Society), and the
>> adult gives the movement meaning. Through this interaction, the original
>> unsuccessful grasping-motion is transformed into pointing, which becomes
>> more refined and simplified over time. Vygotsky interpreted the pointing
>> gesture as an example of internalization and transformation of the
>> intermental to the intramental.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. (From Cole and Cole, The development of Chidlren (2001), p. 295)
>>
>> Between 9 months and a year, babies acquire *secondary intersubjectivity,*the ability to share mental states with another person and to understand
>> what they are intending to do (Chapter 5, p. 197). The close link between
>> secondary intersubjectivity and communication is evident in the form of
>> behavior called *social referencing,* the process through which babies
>> check their caregiver's reactions to an uncertain event or an unfamiliar
>> person as a guide to their own behavior. Secondary intersubjectivity is a
>> crucial precursor to language acquisition because babies and their
>> caregivers are sharing knowledge about the objects and events that are the
>> focus of their joint attention.
>>
>> Secondary intersubjectivity is also apparent when babies begin to point at
>> objects (Butterworth, 2003). Pointing is clearly a communicative act
>> intended to create a joint focus of attention, but it is a primitive one.
>> When 12-month-olds see a remote-controlled car roll past them, first they
>> point at it and then they look to see how their caregivers react to it
>> (social referencing). At 18 months of age, the function of pointing
>> becomes communicative in a more complex way. Now children are more likely
>> first to look at their caregivers to see if they are looking at the car and
>> then to point to it. If babies this age are alone in the room when the
>> electric car appears, they do not point until the caretaker walks back into
>> the room, clearly demonstrating that their pointing has a purpose and is
>> meant to communicate to another person (Butterworth, 2003).
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. (From Class discussion)
>>
>>
>>
>> Tomasello, on the other hand, argues that pointing arises as a
>> pre-linguistic communicative gesture. Instead of viewing pointing as
>> something that acquires a communicative meaning through interaction,
>> Tomasello argues that pointing has a communicative meaning from its initial
>> formation because the infant has acquired the social-cognitive skills to
>> share experiences with others, view others as mental agents,
>> and form goals with others. Pointing initiates joint attention of the
>> infant and another towards an object because of a shared communicative
>> intentionality. The infant points because he wishes to inform, request
>> information from, or share an emotional expression with an adult about an
>> object. For Tomasello, pointing is more than just a request for an
>> object, as Vygotsky seemed to imply.
>>
>> Not only does pointing serve various communicative functions, but
>> Tomasello also argues that human pointing forms the basic foundation for
>> language. Both pointing and language both require the same social-cognitive
>> skills of requiring infants to see others as "intentional agents with whom
>> one can share experience" (Tomasello et al. "A New Look at Infant Pointing,"
>> 718). Pointing serves the same purpose as an utterance: it introduces a
>> topic (old or new) for communication.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4 (Some questions).
>>
>> What is significant about the following?
>>
>> a)Tomasello does not cite the work of Butterfield and Butterfield's
>> account does not appear to lean heavily on the idea of secondary
>> intersubjectivity.
>>
>> b). There is still an obviously important role for the adult
>> in ontogeny of pointing in Tomasello, but it attributes communicative intent
>> to the child from the onset. So clearly the role of the social other is
>> different.
>>
>>
>>
>> Overall, however, it seems wise to me that people seeking to illustrate
>> Vygotsky's ideas about the social origins of higher psychological functions
>> not use the example of pointing unless or until they
>>
>> can take account of the research briefly noted above.
>>
>>
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Sun Nov 4 20:25 PST 2007